Indian Supreme Court agrees to hear petition against Section 377

Activists’ arguments against reinstated sodomy law to be heard in open court

India’s Supreme Court has agreed to an open-court hearing of a petition challenging its Dec 11 ruling that reinstated Section 377, which prohibits “carnal intercourse against the order of nature.”

It is expected that a hearing date will be set by the last week in April.

The court had dismissed previous petitions seeking a review of its ruling that set aside a 2009 Delhi high court decision that struck down Section 377, arguing that only the country’s parliament could change the colonial-era law, which effectively criminalizes gay sex.

In the latest bid to win a review of the ruling, petitioners, including the Naz Foundation, state, “This Court has incorrectly held that a minuscule fraction of population cannot claim fundamental rights, thereby rendering the Part III of the Constitution meaningless for all individuals and minority communities in India. This finding has caused immense public injury and if not rectified, would have dangerous implications on the enforcement of fundamental rights of citizens. The judgment reflects an issue of bias against the Lesbian Gay Bisexual & Transgender (LGBT) persons.”

Gay rights activists argue that in the four-year period after the Delhi court’s decision, thousands of people became open about their sexuality. They maintain that the Supreme Court’s decision to subsequently uphold Section 377 exposes those people to prosecution “on account of the association between homosexuality and penile-anal/penile-oral sexual acts.”

On April 15, a two-judge panel of India’s top court recognized transgender people as a third gender and called on government to implement measures to ensure their equal treatment and greater acceptance in wider society.

“Recognition of one’s gender identity lies at the heart of the fundamental right to dignity,” the Supreme Court’s ruling states. “Gender . . . constitutes the core of one’s sense of being as well as an integral part of a person’s identity. Legal recognition of gender identity is, therefore, part of right to dignity and freedom guaranteed under our Constitution.”

In the April 15 ruling, the judges noted the greater acceptance and prominence transgender people, or hijras, used to enjoy in Indian culture, a status that was eroded with the passage of the 1871 Criminal Tribes Act during British colonial rule that deemed the entire community “criminal.”

While the law was repealed at the end of the 1940s, the community continues to be marginalized and abused, writes Geeta Pandey, of the BBC News in Delhi.


Natasha Barsotti is originally from Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean. She had high aspirations of representing her country in Olympic Games sprint events, but after a while the firing of the starting gun proved too much for her nerves. So she went off to university instead. Her first professional love has always been journalism. After pursuing a Master of Journalism at UBC , she began freelancing at Xtra West — now Xtra Vancouver — in 2006, becoming a full-time reporter there in 2008.

Read More About:
Power, News, Asia, Human Rights

Keep Reading

Job discrimination against trans and non-binary people is alive and well

OPINION: A study reveals that we have a long way to go to reach workplace equality for trans and non-binary people

The new generation of gay Conservative sellouts

OPINION: Melissa Lantsman’s and Eric Duncan’s refusals to call out their party’s transphobia is a betrayal of the LGBTQ2S+ community

Over 300 anti-LGBTQ2S+ bills have been introduced this year. This doesn’t mean we should panic

OPINION: While it’s important to watch out for threats, not all threats are created equally. Some of these bills will die a natural death

Xtra’s top LGBTQ2S+ stories of the year

The best and brightest—even most bewildering—stories from a back catalogue brimming with insight